Yeah, this one looked pretty bad. And while I normally have no problems with films that are sequels in name only (sure, I can't think of any examples right now, but I'm sure there's some good ones out there), I'll be passing this one up.

Though at least someone's gotta like it, since over on TVtropes it has a fairly positive mention.

The only scene from this movie that I remember was the kill with the condom. Her line "Ribbed, for her pleasure" doesn't help things either. I can't believe that that line has ingrained itself into my neurons.

Wasn't the whole idea of the "Psycho" part in the first film was that he was hallucinating all of his killings in the first place and that was the reason that at the end they talk about the guy he killed in the beginning was in Europe and alive? He was Psycho cause his middle schizophrenic hallucinations made him think he actually killed those people, and try to feed a cat to an ATM... At least that was what I got from it at least (haven't read the book so it might be more detailed in that as being real)

And if that is the case how can she have survived an attack that never happened?

I haven't seen this or the original (I don't know why, the original doesn't interest me at all and I'm a huge horror fan), but I love Mila Kunis. I wonder, if it wasn't trying to tie into the original, and therefore get compared to the original, would it still be as terrible of a movie? Or would it be, as I get the impression it may, a pretty campy, entertaining movie?

I'm sorry but American Psycho wasn't a great film. If you read the book, you'd see that they left soooooo much out. I mean the violence is so over the top and gory if they made a true adaptation it would be NC-17 for sure. As for the sequal, why do they make that crap? I heard about the Donnie Darko sequal too and have probably the same amount of enthusiasm for it, 0%.